Rick Perry and the debates

ORLANDO, Fla. – Texas Gov. Rick Perry tried to put the best spin Friday on his impression of a headlight-frozen deer in the previous night’s Republican presidential debate, seeking to quiet a chorus of party activists and strategists wondering aloud if he has what it takes.

“It’s not the slickest candidate or smoothest debater that we need to elect,” Perry said at a meeting here of the Conservative Political Action Committee, urging attendees instead to pick someone who will “stand their ground.”

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, meanwhile, had a prime 7:15 a.m. slot on Fox and Friends, basking in positive reviews for an aggressive debate performance, amid signs he has the chance to overtake the fading Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota as the voice of pure conservatives in the primary.

Santorum tangled with Perry Thursday night on the Texan’s record on illegal immigration, and drew attacks from both Perry and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.

It’s too early to tell whether Perry’s third straight rocky debate performance will dent his status as the GOP front-runner. After all, bad primary debate performances don’t always correlate with electoral failure, as another Texan, former President George W. Bush, proved.

Still, Perry did himself no favors by defending in-state college tuition for the children of undocumented immigrants and by occasional moments of incoherence on foreign policy and other topics.

The Perry campaign is working hard right now to persuade potential Republican primary voters that we need to elect a better president, not a better debater. And he’s right: the skills necessary to make a good debater have little to do with the job of being President. A good debater has to marshal as many of the facts as possible, and have them in his head, ready for use; a President is surrounded by advisors and staffers who have all of the information he needs to take a decision available. A good debater has to be able to think and respond at a moment’s notice, while we expect our President to take his time, as time allows, to consider the decisions he has to take, pondered and measured carefully. Barack Obama proved himself to be a capable debater, yet has turned out to be an incapable President.

But if being a good debater isn’t anything significantly related to being a good President, it may well be a requirement for becoming President, and if that is the case, Governor Perry is in some trouble. I haven’t seen any of the debates thus far, and I’m hesitant to accept the verdict of the professional media that he’s flubbed up, but when his own statements are indicative of the fact he believes his performance wasn’t very good in the debates, that is sufficient evidence for me.

Sister Toldjah did — sort of — watch the debate, and, as someone who describes herself as “leaning” toward Mr Perry, she was not very happy:

As someone who has been leaning Perry since the Texas Governor announced in South Carolina last month that he was declaring his candidacy, I was extremely disappointed in his performance – not so much for his policy positions but for the way he framed some of them, for the way he couldn’t clearly articulate his positions, and for not taking the primetime opportunities presented to him to count off one by one the times main rival and serial liar Mitt Romney has reinvented himself in order to attempt to win over specific political blocs that are crucial to his political success. I mean, there is no question that Governor Perry, who came off as confused at times – especially towards the latter half of the debate - absolutely blew it time and time again. This after a lackluster “second half” performance in the last debate. True, there are still several months left before the primaries start, but at this rate if he doesn’t shape up and turn things around, he’ll fall into the second tier so fast it will make his head spin – that is, if he hasn’t fallen into the second tier already. Perry strikes me as a warm, likeable, patriotic, down-home kinda guy – just the kind of person I’d love to see in the WH again – but all the best characteristics in the world won’t help you when you don’t come to the arena tanned, rested, and ready to rumble.

In her next paragraph, Sis noted that one of Governor Perry’s biggest problems was that he told the truth, and didn’t back off from it:

Which leads me to this: Rick Perry could have sailed through the debate last night with flying colors, but his comment about his support for the TX Dream Act and how if you didn’t support it you didn’t “have a heart” would have negated every other “win.” That is a NO NO. Big time no no. You simply DO NOT say this to conservatives who are sick of being viciously maligned by demagoguing liberals as “heartless” when it comes to any number of issues related to “being compassionate” for your fellow man. Unlike Mitt Romney, who has never taken a position he hasn’t waffled on five minutes later, Perry is clearly not going to back down on his support for the Texas Dream Act. That’s something that conservatives can either like him or dislike him for on the merits of (or lack thereof, however you view it) - but it is something he is better off explaining solely in terms of why he supported it and why he found it appropriate for his state to have put into place instead of shirking off any opposition as “heartless.” Red State’s Moe Lane has an excellent piece talking about how Perry – and other GOP candidates – should approach the illegal immigration issue on the whole that should be considered a must-read. For related commentary on the TX Dream Act – which, contra to popular myth, is not the same thing as the national Dream Act as pushed by President Obama, and which was overwhelmingly supported by the conservative Texas state legislature - read these two insightful pieces by Texans Kat McKinley and Bryan Preston.

Sis seems a bit more worried than I am at the moment:

Some comments I’ve read today have suggested that Perry supporters shouldn’t lose faith because “not everyone comes across well on the debate stage” and “this, too, shall pass.” Well, that’s nice if you want to bury your head in the sand, but I have envisioned for a long time now a GOP nominee who would be able to effortlessly go toe to toe with our slick celebrity President during the general election campaign season debates because, sadly, if the general public doesn’t pay attention to anything else during the two years of relentless campaigning by candidates, they do pay attention to the last couple of months of debates before the election. Whoever our eventual nominee is needs to be on their game 100% in order to be able not just to sell their message to Average Janes and Joes who don’t follow politics as closely as you and I do, but also to be able to counter the stream of rhetorical lies we’ll hear from the current WH occupant, lies not just about his own record but also about his opponent’s record – lies that will be amplified 10-fold by our complicit, liberal mainstream media.

Right now, Perry is not that person. In fact, I’m not sure who up on that stage last night could be.

Governor Perry is clearly our best qualified candidate to become our next President; whether being our best qualified candidate makes him our best candidate to defeat President Obama is another matter.

36 Comments

Of course, I saw things a bit differently. Since Rick Perry’s “you don’t have a heart” was a slap in the face of a very clear majority of the American public, and a very serious Leftist tactic, there will definitely be a major backlash for that. And his Left-wing-inspired anecdotal heart-string-pulling story about a cancer-stricken woman and the effects on his decision to pull off his unilateral Big Government crony capitalist pay-to-play Executive Order to mandate Gardasil was based on, errr, erroneous memory regarding the timing of the events.

Lots of people are souring on Rick Perry and taking second looks at other people, such as Herman Cain (RS McCain’s choice from basically the beginning), Rick Santorum and … Sarah Palin (my choice since 2008).

I knew you are a Rick Perry supporter so, despite your lack of blogging time and my need to fill in some space, there was no way I was going to post my scathing article (collection of scathing quotes plus my own not-so-friendly commentary) on CSPT.

I knew you are a Rick Perry supporter so, despite your lack of blogging time and my need to fill in some space, there was no way I was going to post my scathing article (collection of scathing quotes plus my own not-so-friendly commentary) on CSPT.

“The Perry campaign is working hard right now to persuade potential Republican primary voters that we need to elect a better president, not a better debater. And he’s right: the skills necessary to make a good debater have little to do with the job of being President.”

I couldn’t disagree more! That said, and I watched all the debates, my opinion of Rick Perry has improved, not as Presidential material, but as a good human being with a heart. Jon Huntsman is the only other candidate who fits that characteristic, and, who also has the qualifications to be seriously considered for the nomination.

Dana, it is not so much that Rick Perry is a poor debater, which he is, but he was not prepared, even now after three debates. This is definitely not Presidential material!

Frankly, not a one of them measures up to President Obama, not even close, and certainly not Sarah Palin. Your best bet would be to nominate Jeb Bush.

A big problem you have is that your party is so fractured, so divided, so many so far to the Right, that there is no person I can think of who could unite your party behind one candidate. Can you imagine Hitchcock voting for Romney, for example? Just because he is a Mormon, that disqualifies him in the minds of many far Right Repubs, Hitchcock being an example. Right John?

My main point is that President Obama is far superior to any of your candidates in terms of intelligence, leadership qualities, communication skills, character, morals and ethics. Considering the condition of the country he inherited, and what has transpired since regarding Repub Congressional dysfunction, not even God could be reelected to a second term.

In spite of themselves, the American people might well turn President Obama down, because they are jobless and angry. That would be a great loss and quite spiteful if this were to happen. I don’t think it will happen, as I expect the American people to come to their senses and reelect President Obama!

OK, why do debating skills have anything to do with being a good President? What purpose does being able to get a quick point in against an opponent have to do with leadership, with inspiration, or with carefully considered judgement?

My main point is that President Obama is far superior to any of your candidates in terms of intelligence, leadership qualities, communication skills, character, morals and ethics.

He is? Well, his “intelligence, leadership qualities, communication skills, character, morals and ethics” don’t seem to have translated into him being an effective or successful President. His public approval ratings are low, and getting lower, and he’s rapidly being seen as a liability for the Democrats running in 2012. You wouldn’t be hearing all of the talk about Hillary Clinton challenging him in the 2012 primaries, or calls for him to not run again — in a Chicago newspaper, no less! — if he were a successful President.

Jimmy Carter had “intelligence, character, morals and ethics,” but he was a failure as a President, and the public decided not to renew his contract in 1980; he simply proved he wasn’t able to lead this country.

The American people are coming to their senses, Perry, and that’s why President Obama is in so much trouble. It doesn’t matter how much you like him, how great a guy you think he is, or even how bad the conditions you believe he inherited were; he hasn’t helped make things better. He could be the nicest and smartest guy on earth, but that doesn’t mean he is up to the job.

Can you imagine Hitchcock voting for Romney, for example? Just because he is a Mormon, that disqualifies him in the minds of many far Right Repubs, Hitchcock being an example. Right John?

Hey, dingleberry, I knew sooner or later you would try to play that “Mormon” card to try to destroy the absolutely mushy Romney who has 3 positions on every issue, none of them the same. How did I know a dingleberry like you would pull that crap out? Because it is a Leftist tactic that has been discussed elsewhere. Conservatives are very much aware of the fact that radical, unhinged Leftists such as yourself will be throwing that around. Guess what. Glenn Beck is a Mormon and has stated as much on many occasions. Your stupid crap doesn’t get you anywhere with reasonable people.

If Romney were the candidate in the General, would I vote for him? I don’t know, depends on the VP pick. I voted for Sarah Palin in 2008; it just so happened the Left-leaning John McCain was on the ticket as well.

Seriously, Perry, why don’t you shut your totally ignorant pie-hole and actually try to learn something? Or would that defeat your entire purpose of Building the Gap?

And you post on a website owned by a Catholic, while I cross post on a site owned by a Protestant.

You know, I can think of our differences — in our choice of Presidential candidates, on the death penalty, as examples — and realize that we conservatives, while we generally agree, don’t have to march in lockstep (or goosestep) the way our friends on the left seem to think that they must.

“Barack Obama (has revealed Republicans as economic saboteurs) as President, and he simply has to be defeated, for the good of the (GOP).”

Fixed that for you, Dana.

I know three years of sabotaging the country’s well-being requires a cover story, but not everybody is as gullible as you need them to be. Can you keep it up until November 2012? The public wants Obama’s jobs bill and deficit reduction package. That’s a long time to block recovery in full public view.

It was one of the more jarring moments in Thursday night’s debate. Stephen Hill, a U.S. Army soldier serving in Iraq, asked whether he, as a gay American, would be able to continue serving if one of these Republican candidates won. Some in the audience booed, and Rick Santorum slammed the Obama administration for giving gay and lesbian troops “a special privilege,” which would end under a Santorum presidency.

The former senator did not, however, have anything to say during the debate about the ugly audience reaction. Yesterday, in a Fox News interview, Santorum was willing to do the right thing.

“I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier. That soldier is serving our country. I thank him for his service to our country. I’m sure he’s doing an excellent job. I hope he’s safe and I hope he returns safely and does his mission well.

“I have to admit, I seriously did not hear those boos. Had I heard them, I certainly would have commented on them, but, as you know, when you’re in that sort of environment, you’re sort of focused on the question and formulating your answer. I just didn’t hear those couple of boos that were out there, but certainly had I, I would have said, ‘Don’t do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service.’”

That’s a perfectly good answer. It may not be entirely truthful — other candidates said they heard the boos — and it doesn’t make up for Santorum’s awful substantive response to the question, but I’m glad he’s at least willing to condemn those booing a serviceman who’s putting his life on the line for the United States. It is, quite literally, the least he should do.

But what about the rest of the Republican field? Yesterday, Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson, to their credit, also denounced those who booed Hill, albeit a day late. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, however, refused requests for comment.

So a bunch of teabaggers boo a US soldier serving in Iraq. Santorum, Huntsman and Johnson have teh courage to condemn it.

Governor Perry is clearly our best qualified candidate to become our next President;

Bwahahahahahahah. My God, that’s a terrible thing to say about the Republican Party…

Is it? Well, Rick Perry has been a tremendous success at his current job, while Barack Obama has been a major failure at his. We can’t know, in advance, whether Mr Perry would fail as our President, until he actually has the job, but we already know that Mr Obama can’t do the job.

What a great position y’all have: we can’t vote for a guy who might fail, so therefore we have to support one who has already failed.

“Barack Obama (has revealed Republicans as economic saboteurs) as President, and he simply has to be defeated, for the good of the (GOP).”

Fixed that for you, Dana.

I know three years of sabotaging the country’s well-being requires a cover story, but not everybody is as gullible as you need them to be. Can you keep it up until November 2012? The public wants Obama’s jobs bill and deficit reduction package. That’s a long time to block recovery in full public view.

“(T)hree years of sabotaging the country’s well-being?” And we did this how, Mr Whistler? For the first two years of his administration, President Obama had huge majorities in both the House and the Senate, and got his economic and social legislation passed, despite attempted filibusters by the Republicans in the Senate. Lily Ledbetter? Passed! The stimulus plan? Passed! The destruction of our health care? Passed! Dudd-Frank? Passed!

The guy you said was the greatest President in your lifetime got virtually everything he asked for passed by the Congress. It took him more effort than he thought, and he wound up having to compromise with Democratic senators to get a few things, but he got it all passed. But you basically got everything you wanted, and everything you told us would generate millions of jobs and kick the economy into high gear.

And the result? What y’all said would work, didn’t. We told you so.

When the American people were asked to pass judgement on the Obama agenda and the performance of the eleventy-first Congress, they replaced the Democratic majority in the House with a Republican one, and took away six — seven, if you count Scott Brown’s special election victory in January of 2010 — Senate seats away from the Democrats.

The American people were asked to take a look at the “accomplishments” of the Democrats, and in free and fair elections, soundly rejected them.

But hey, the voters will get yet another chance to pass judgement on President Obama and his record, 13½ months from now. The opinion polls tell us that that judgement is likely to be a harsh one, but, as I’ve said before, the only polls which really count for anything are the ones held on election day; it’s always possible that the Gallup Polls are wrong.

However, it’s clear that y’all are worried, worried sick, and it’s easy to see why: the Democrats can’t run on their record, because their record is one of failure. All that leaves them with is trying to trash their opponents, saying, in effect, “Yeah, we suck, but the Republicans, why they’ll be even suckier!”

So a bunch of teabaggers boo a US soldier serving in Iraq. Santorum, Huntsman and Johnson have teh courage to condemn it.

Your pal, Perry, doesn’t have the spine to defend a US soldier.

The law says that homosexual service members no longer have to hide their sexual orientation to remain in the military, and that won’t be changed. As for Governor Perry, the question wasn’t addressed to him, so he didn’t need to address it, and, quite frankly, if he wants to win the Republican nomination, keeping his mouth shut on this issue is the wiser course; Republicans, generally speaking, aren’t particularly supportive of people feeling the need to announce that they are homosexual in public, as though that somehow makes them special or deserving of special considerations.

The Republican nominee isn’t going to receive a significant share of the homosexual vote anyway.

Most recently, your party led this nation to the brink of default with your games regarding the debt ceiling, causing a downgrade of our credit rating and causing more uncertainty globally. Bovine feces on that!

Your party has used a record number of filibuster threats such that the minority party, Republicans, control the Senate. What kind of a democracy do you people support, only one when you are the majority? To hell with that!

Your minority leader in the Senate has stated many times that his MAIN priority is to limit President Obama to one term. In other words, to hell with the country for now, we know what is better! BS with that!!!

Finally, you constantly claim that Obama is a failure, without a shred of evidence:
* Saving us from a great depression is a failure? No!
* Turning our GDP from negative to positive is a failure? No!
* Increasing the DJIA from 6,626 on 03/02/09 to 12,639 on 05/02/11, an increase of 91%, is a failure? No!
* Creating a net of 2 million jobs, double what Bush did in his 8 years, is a failure? No!
* Bringing unemployment from 10.2% down 10% to 9.1% is a failure? No!
* Putting us on a path to insure the health care of most Americans and reducing health care costs, is a failure? No!
* Escalating our war in Afghanistan is a failure? Yes!
* Not demanding a sharing of the burden from our wealthier fellow citizens is a failure? Yes!

Even the President’s most staunch supporters, like I am, find fault in certain areas. But you, Dana, have allowed your ideology, your partisanship, to strain your credibility toward out-and-out dishonesty. (And yes, I am being kind!) Pull your head out (of the sand), Dana! You folks undermine your President and mine at every opportunity!!!

Perry, his own job performance, or lack thereof, undermines him. I’m just a single blogger, Perry, and can do only very, very little. If President Obama is defeated next year — from my keyboard to God’s monitor screen! — it will be because the American people have collectively decided that he has not been up to the job.

First of all, let’s be clear here: There’s no way on earth you don’t know the how. You’re a bullsh1tter, not an amnesiac. So we have to deal with Dana’a alternative history of the past three years that conveniently paints out the Republicans as oh-poor-me little powerless folks who didn’t explode filibusters through the roof. And we must pretend Democrats passed their dream list with no opposition, and if two or three conservative Democrats got to call the shots because 60 were needed to pass a filibuster, that’s entirely the Democrat Party’s fault, not the 40 Republican Senators standing in the way.

Sure, you warned us the stimulus wouldn’t work, but what does that mean? Obviously it had benefits to the economy and softened the blow of the economic crisis George W. Bush handed off to Obama. Wasn’t big enough, sure, but that’s not your argument. Your argument is we should have ridden out the tough times! What if no-stimulus Obama were looking at 12% unemployment right now instead? Well, you’d gladly hold that against him too, because you’ve already revealed that in the end, this is about nothing more than taking the current economic conditions, pointing to Obama in the WH, and trying to insinuate that the only logical conclusion is to elect a Republican.

Of course, the fact that you can’t generate a single respectable candidate mustn’t be held against you, because if Democrats point out that you’re a gang of buffoons and saboteurs, we’re just running away from our own record. Never mind that all your policy recommendations for the past three years would have tanked the economy and left it on the ocean floor, never mind that you just tried to destroy the economy to prevent a dollar of taxes on the rich, HEY OBAMA IS IN THE WH AND THINGS ARE BAD SO THERE.

Yet our record is pretty great where we were able to get something past the obstructionist Republicans. The things we did helped a horrible, horrible economic crash, and we have more plans that could help more. And you’ll try to stop those too, because a person completely willing to base 2012 on blaming everything on the guy in the WH regardless of fact while absolving Republicans of all obstruction is a saboteur.

Sorry, but that’s like saying, “Hey, you can’t call me a racist just because of my lynchings of black people!” When you walk like a duck, Dana, I’m gonna call you a duck. Keep thinking you’re doing the right thing, but know that you’ve spent three years fighting recovery at every step (along with health care for millions of Americans) and that it’s time you were held accountable for it.

With the President’s numbers on a downward spiral, (and his perpetual campaign speeches wearing thinner than an Al Gore ozone layer), it’s not hard to understand why the left has become desperately in search of a positive narrative to overcome Obama’s economic failures sending this nation into a fiscal Armageddon. His most recent Jobs bill has supplied late night comedians with plenty of material, while Congress, (specifically the United States Senate), can’t/won’t even come up with a compromise to anything they receive from the House.

Take for example what transpired on Friday. John Boehner and the House of “Representatives” passed a bill early in the morning that directed $3.65 billion to FEMA, (with spending offsets*), that Harry Reid and the Senate immediately rejected. Harry apparently thought it would be a good idea to take the weekend off to “cool off”. My thought is Harry desperately needs the weekend to have his political tools make the rounds on the liberal networks to frame the House conservatives as obstructionist—another political ploy that is wearing thin.

Since the Republicans swept the Democrats out of the House in the 2010 “shellacking”, they’ve sent numerous bills, (some even bipartisan), to the Senate—INCLUDING A BUDGET, (that Nancy Pelosi had taken a pass on), only to see the legislation tabled/killed by the Democrats. Sweeping legislation that had the official stamp of reducing the Obama spending spree containing deficit reductions, spending caps, and pruning the federal regulatory statutes have all entered the Senate chambers only to die at Harry Reid’s obstructive hands.

* offsets: The House inserted into the bill a process/funds to pay for the FEMA request, money that would come out of unused dollars in the green energy fund. Democrats rejected this, saying in essence that that was “their money” already promised to “their constituents”. Understand, no one is going to touch “their money”.

First of all, let’s be clear here: There’s no way on earth you don’t know the how. You’re a bullsh1tter, not an amnesiac. So we have to deal with Dana’a alternative history of the past three years that conveniently paints out the Republicans as oh-poor-me little powerless folks who didn’t explode filibusters through the roof. And we must pretend Democrats passed their dream list with no opposition, and if two or three conservative Democrats got to call the shots because 60 were needed to pass a filibuster, that’s entirely the Democrat Party’s fault, not the 40 Republican Senators standing in the way.

For the first two years of his administration, President Obama had huge majorities in both the House and the Senate, and got his economic and social legislation passed, despite attempted filibusters by the Republicans in the Senate. Lily Ledbetter? Passed! The stimulus plan? Passed! The destruction of our health care? Passed! Dudd-Frank? Passed!

The guy you said was the greatest President in your lifetime got virtually everything he asked for passed by the Congress. It took him more effort than he thought, and he wound up having to compromise with Democratic senators to get a few things, but he got it all passed. But you basically got everything you wanted, and everything you told us would generate millions of jobs and kick the economy into high gear.

And the result? What y’all said would work, didn’t. We told you so.

Did you miss that part? Well, I guess not:

Sure, you warned us the stimulus wouldn’t work, but what does that mean? Obviously it had benefits to the economy and softened the blow of the economic crisis George W. Bush handed off to Obama. Wasn’t big enough, sure, but that’s not your argument. Your argument is we should have ridden out the tough times! What if no-stimulus Obama were looking at 12% unemployment right now instead? Well, you’d gladly hold that against him too, because you’ve already revealed that in the end, this is about nothing more than taking the current economic conditions, pointing to Obama in the WH, and trying to insinuate that the only logical conclusion is to elect a Republican.

If the “no-stimulus Obama were looking at 12% unemployment right now,” sure we’d hold it against him, because we want to defeat President Obama and the Democrats and return this country to fiscal sanity. But the fact is you don’t know any more than anyone else, save the LORD, whether defeating the stimulus plan would have resulted in 12% unemployment or 8% unemployment, or a full recovery; you’re just pulling a number out of your nether regions and claiming that as an argument.

Still, I’m just a far-reich wingnut, babbling away on a blog! All I have is one vote. And if a majority of the voters look at things the way you do, then I’ll be bitterly disappointed come the evening of November 6th, 2012. But somehow, it doesn’t seem as though, at least from the current evidence, that the public are quite as effusive in their praise of our 44th President as you are.

Most people who are successful in their jobs really don’t have to have their successes explained; normally, those successes are pretty obvious. Just what does it say about President Obama’s “successes” that you do have to try to explain them to people?

Keep thinking you’re doing the right thing, but know that you’ve spent three years fighting recovery at every step (along with health care for millions of Americans) and that it’s time you were held accountable for it.

I’m going to be held accountable for it? Good heavens, what do you think you can do here; take away my blog?

But I have to say, those radical Leftists who so adamantly claim they’re so excellently supportive of the homosexual agenda sure do love using homosexual slurs against their enemies every chance they get. Hypocrite much?

Dana, in addition to the esteemed John Hitchcock (Go figure!), some distinguished Conservatives do not buy your wishy washy dismissal of Rick Perry’s poor performance in three straight debates already:

“WASHINGTON — After a weak debate performance and a loss in the Florida straw poll, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is having his fitness as the GOP presidential frontrunner seriously questioned.

These doubts were on display during the roundtable on “Fox News Sunday.”

“Perry really did throw up all over himself in the debate, at a time when he needed to raise his game. He did worse, it seems to me, than in previous debates. … Perry is one-half a step away from almost total collapse as a candidate,” said Fox News commentator Brit Hume.

Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol wrote an editorial titled “Yikes” on Friday, writing of Thursday’s debate, “[N]one of the candidates really seemed up to the moment, either politically or substantively. In the midst of a crisis, we’re getting politics as usual — and a somewhat subpar version of politics as usual at that.”

The alternative, he wrote, is for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) to jump into the race.

On “Fox News Sunday,” Kristol said his editorial reflected what many Republicans are thinking, as evinced in Saturday’s straw poll in Florida, where Herman Cain won with 37 percent of the vote. The results were considered especially embarrassing for Perry, who came in second, since former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney did not officially compete. (He ended up coming in third.)

But Kristol said it was a repudiation of both the frontrunners. “

I am not surprised that Mr “9-9-9″ Herman Cain won the FL straw poll. Aside from Jon Huntsman, he is the only nominee who seems to know himself and steps forward confidently with his own views, just like President Obama does!

Sorry, Perry, but Bill Kristol doesn’t count as a distinguished Conservative. He counts as a false Conservative. He’s an Inside-The-Beltway Ruling Class Republican. An elitist, if you will. And all self-respecting Conservatives deny him as one of their own. Do read up a little so you don’t look so utterly ignorant next time.

I am not surprised that Mr “9-9-9? Herman Cain won the FL straw poll.

I call utter BS nonsense. Perry, you are the one who was screaming “the TEA Party is raaaaacist” from the rooftops because we absolutely reject the Socialist in the Oval Office. You are the one claiming we in the TEA Party reject the Socialist only because he is (less than half) black. There is no way on Providence’s Green Earth that you can reconcile your brain-dead, logic-free accusations of raaaaacism among the TEA Party (of which Herman Cain is a member) and your “not surprised” that the TEA Party base voted for a black man.

Perry, I am calling you out. You are dishonest to the core. And your feigned shock that I’m a straight shooter regarding Rick Perry’s lack of Conservative credentials is dishonest from the word go. How about if you get around to apologizing to me for your evil claim that I would vote against someone just because he was a Mormon? When are you going to do that, you worthless toe-jam eating scum-sucker?

It truly is arrogant, dishonest, passive-aggressive, dishonorable filth like you that disgusts me. If there were less of your type in America, this nation would be geometrically better for it. But unlike Barack Obama’s great friend Bill Ayers, I’m not about to advocate murdering 1/4 of the US population in order to reach my goal. I’ll leave those plans where they always originate — the radical Left like Obama, Ayers, Dorhn, Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, Farakhan, etc, ad nauseum.

Your problem, Socialist foreigner book putter backer, is that every Conservative and Libertarian on this site has said on multiple occasions that I have not lied in response to your baseless accusations. Your problem, Socialist foreigner book putter backer, is that every Conservative and Libertarian on this site has called you out for your incessant lying on this site.

But thanks for playing, worthless Socialist foreigner who doesn’t even have a vote in this country and who obviously couldn’t make a living if not for the taxpayers of New Zealand.

Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that the more Conservative a group of people are, the less racist that group as a whole. That doesn’t change the fact that the more educated a group of people are, the more Conservative that group as a whole. As I already showed with citations previously. But of course the Socialist who likens himself a “progressive” as if that made a difference, Perry, and the Socialist foreigner, book putter backer, will never admit what the data, histo-facts, and current events already proved.

It is cute though, Socialist foreign book putter backer, how you continue your same ole same ole lies ad nauseum when you have been consistently shown to be the liar in practically all your attempts, Dana Pico’s thrashing of you as a perfect example. You’ll continue your cute little lie-filled tantrums with chocolate all over your face, accusing others of lying when they say you’re the one who ate the chocolate pudding, because being the Socialist you are, you cannot avoid the prepubescent lying absolutely necessary to push the Socialist agenda (which is called “progressive” in the US) and you cannot avoid falsely accusing others of lying because that is part and parcel with the Socialist agenda (which is called “progressive” in the US).

Your problem, Socialist foreigner book putter backer, is that every Conservative and Libertarian on this site has said on multiple occasions that I have not lied in response to your baseless accusations.

Where are those mobile weapons labs?

It’s amusing to see you rant and rant and rant the more you try to evade that simple question.

Dana: Well, besides quoting yourself again as if I didn’t read it before without contradicting what I said, and trotting out another round of soundbites and “common sense” horsetwaddle, you had about one real thing to say:

“If the “no-stimulus Obama were looking at 12% unemployment right now,” sure we’d hold it against him, because we want to defeat President Obama and the Democrats…”

There you go. Thanks for sticking that dagger in your own eye, but let me twist it around a bit more…

I know, you threw some line on the end of that quote about “restoring fiscal sanity,” but that is what the highly watered-down (yet STILL SO MUCH!!!! to you) Dodd-Frank bill tried to do after the fiscal insanity of untethered Wall Street shenanigans nearly destroyed the economy. No, Dana, there are people trying to restore fiscal sanity to the country, but you’re not one of them. You’ve got yourself summed up right in that quote there. You’re just a guy saying whatever it takes to win elections, and trying to point to an election you haven’t won yet as proof that what you’re saying holds water.

President Obama and most of the Democrats have tried to restore fiscal sanity to the country. Republicans are the ones prescribing more of the same. This isn’t really a far-fetched statement.

As for you and your teensy self and your blog, duh. Yep, we’re just drops in the ocean, but so it goes, each quite important by itself. The only accountability I speak of for you is the truth hitting your eyes as long as you’ll tolerate it. Just like Harry Truman said, just tell them the truth and they’ll think it’s hell.

As for Obama’s record and the state of the economy, successful Democratic policies tempered by Republican sabotage isn’t too hard to explain, and it’s been right in front of the public’s eyes for three years. A lot more believable than the contorted sin of omission that you have to construct to pretend Republicans spent the past three years powerless and idle. Ready to keep telling that tall tale for another thirteen months of obstruction?

I know you guys are ready to whine and squeal and shed tears if Obama keeps up the fighting spirit, but he’s meticulously proven to the public just how intransigent the GOP is. You know when Eric Cantor is whining about being “constructive” you’ve struck gold. The case for a second term is easy to make, and as long as he doesn’t let the actual people who voted for him down, he’ll have plenty of supporters.

“If the “no-stimulus Obama were looking at 12% unemployment right now,” sure we’d hold it against him, because we want to defeat President Obama and the Democrats…”